Page 94 of 102 FirstFirst ... 447484888990919293949596979899100 ... LastLast
Results 1,396 to 1,410 of 1526

Thread: Dark Souls

  1. #1396
    disc jockey to your heart krissy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    in the rain
    Posts
    5,616
    Articles
    1
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    lol "plot" in any of these

    j/k but i don't think it'd be difficult to piggyback off concepts like in ds1>2 yeah

    im still two games behind so they dont have to hurry with more/ever imo

    sometimes it's good to know when to stop

  2. #1397

    Default

    Bloodborne's plot is a lot more integrated into the game, than the Dark Souls games

    Actually just had a debate about this a couple weeks ago with the girlfriend. Bloodborne is centered on the things discovered and (mis)used in and around Yarnham, a new game would maybe be able to have a similar history, but that area in the game would had to have come across and discovered how to use things on their own and in their own way. So it could legitimately be totally different. It ties a lot to the chalice dungeons and the ruling government experimenting with and using stuff that they don't really have any control over, and they either don't know that, or don't want to admit it

    Then again, the DLC opens up the possibility that similar stuff could wash up ashore anywhere else in the world. Plus with the Lovecraftian influences, it could be whole other different types of "ancient ones" influencing everything

    I know it'd be difficult and interesting to spin a tale like that without sounding too convenient, and not just a cash-grab sequel with very little thought put into the how and why, but I would trust Miyazaki to be able to come up with it. Though it may just end up being the Dark Souls 2 team making loose references that don't make a whole lot of sense under scrutinization and is littered with plot holes. I liked what Dark Souls 2 tried to do in a LOT of aspects, but I think they needed a little more guidance from above. But I don't think Miyazaki is into guidance, he either leaves you alone to do your own thing, or ends up completely taking over like with Dark Souls 3. So, whatever. If it happens it happens. It can happen, but it'd be hard. And not everyone there is capable of telling it well. But Dark Souls 2 was still fun to play and had a lot of great ideas that were just cast aside, so the team is certainly capable at least, and I imagine I'd enjoy it no matter which group would create it

    Though I'm honestly super curious what they are really working on since it's supposed to be different from both. I imagine it's time that they did some crazy sci-fi thing. Maybe it'll be Tron people and monsters in a computer chip world



  3. #1398
    disc jockey to your heart krissy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    in the rain
    Posts
    5,616
    Articles
    1
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    sorta like this

  4. #1399

    Default

    Tbh the idea of a sci-fi Dark Souls sounds fantastic. I just don't think I'd be interested if it isn't being made by From Software.

  5. #1400
    Memento Mori Site Contributor Wolf Kanno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nowhere and Everywhere
    Posts
    16,444
    Articles
    54
    Blog Entries
    16
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Technically the Sci-Fi equivalent of Dark Souls made by From Software would be Armored Core which has both the learning curve, heavy use of customization, and hands off, lore driven plot elements already.

  6. #1401

    Default

    The Surge interests me, but I don't think that studio really gets it, as far as what really makes a souls game. Plus, I prefer character creation in these types of games

    I never really looked into armored core, I figured it was army games with robots rather than souls like

  7. #1402
    Memento Mori Site Contributor Wolf Kanno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nowhere and Everywhere
    Posts
    16,444
    Articles
    54
    Blog Entries
    16
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vyk View Post
    I never really looked into armored core, I figured it was army games with robots rather than souls like
    The more I think about the comparison the more it does feel closer to home than one would think. While it is a mission based series, the main drive of the game is to perform missions for credit which you can use to customize your awesome robot. There is a huge amount of depth to building your machine. You would be surprised how much a missions success rate comes down to your load out and where you prioritized parts. It even has the Weight Load mechanic from the Souls series, though it would be more accurate to say that Souls borrowed the idea from AC.

    It's not quite "army game" but that isn't a stretch either. One major difference is that there are bosses in the game (usually other AC Units though sometimes massive war machines) and there is also an in-game battle arena which is simply about pitting your machine against fifty or so unique AC builds in a ranking tournament. The games are also fairly difficult, especially since you have to work your way up from a standard unit no better than the small A.I. security droids and amass enough money to build your own custom death machine.

    The plot is pretty much a variation of the same deal: You're a Raven (AC Mercenary) who takes jobs offered by the all-powerful corporations that rule the world and use Ravens like yourself to fight covert wars against each other for control. Each entry does tend to have a central plot, but it's very hands off and easy to miss vital information because you spend more time backing one faction over another.

  8. #1403

    Default

    Im hoping Miyazaki will stick true to his former self and not make a sequel to Bloodborne.

    Although I can only speak for Dark Souls 2 I really think it did not even come close to the greatness that was Dark Souls 1. A lot of things 2 does with the plot takes away from the meaning of 1 and I refuse to acknowledge it being canon. Why didnt they set Dark Souls 2 in a different part of the world during the Age of Dark and not reference 1 at all? Instead we get cringe worthy shields with Solaire on it and every big plot character from 1 they put so much effort in to present them as epic beings of the history of Lordran is brought down by the "oh its just a cycle" thing. I hate it.

    These games and their way of storytelling work best on a clean slate where every aspect of it is new, because exploration is such a huge part of it. Encountering familiair things during while "exploring" takes away from the experience.

    I cringed when I found Havels Armor in Dark Souls 2 and when I heard there was an Onion Knight with similar name and role as Siegmeyer in 3 I lost all hope for it to be any good.

  9. #1404
    *permanent smite* Spuuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hell, eventually.
    Posts
    3,245

    Default

    It's a shame that you "lost all hope for it to be good" because it's probably a 9.5/10 game overall. And Dark Souls 2 is probably a 9/10. There's no shame in not being as good as a 10/10 game like Dark Souls 1.

  10. #1405
    Memento Mori Site Contributor Wolf Kanno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nowhere and Everywhere
    Posts
    16,444
    Articles
    54
    Blog Entries
    16
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    I still plan on checking out DSII and III eventually. Honestly, DSIII looks the most promising between the two, but that's largely because DSII looks to be a game that sacrificed quality for quantity. I'm still willing to check it out and be surprised. It wouldn't be the first time the black sheep entry was my favorite title in a series after all.

    While I can agree that Miyazaki probably intended for Dark Souls to be a standalone title, I'm not really bothered by its continuation either. As I said, checking some lore info on DSIII makes it feel like Miyazaki still pulls through with some interesting ideas that tie it back to the original lore. I've heard less about DSII but I attribute that to its mixed reception. I hear the PVP is considered the best in the series though.

    I'm actually for Bloodborne to get a sequel, hell I wouldn't mind for Demon's Souls to get one either, but I feel it would be best to take the initial themes and concepts and create a new story and setting from scratch than try to figure out how to make a sequel from the original, and perhaps Dark Souls should have done the same. DSII was out of Miyazaki's hands though and it was nice that he came back to finish the series with DSIII. It may be the most fanservicy entry, but most finales tend to be.

    Still, the core games are fun and the series is unique enough where there are not as many titles that are like it, maybe four or five games off the top of my head that try to mimic it, but that's still a pretty small pool of titles.

  11. #1406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete for President View Post
    Im hoping Miyazaki will stick true to his former self and not make a sequel to Bloodborne.

    Although I can only speak for Dark Souls 2 I really think it did not even come close to the greatness that was Dark Souls 1. A lot of things 2 does with the plot takes away from the meaning of 1 and I refuse to acknowledge it being canon. Why didnt they set Dark Souls 2 in a different part of the world during the Age of Dark and not reference 1 at all? Instead we get cringe worthy shields with Solaire on it and every big plot character from 1 they put so much effort in to present them as epic beings of the history of Lordran is brought down by the "oh its just a cycle" thing. I hate it.

    These games and their way of storytelling work best on a clean slate where every aspect of it is new, because exploration is such a huge part of it. Encountering familiair things during while "exploring" takes away from the experience.

    I cringed when I found Havels Armor in Dark Souls 2 and when I heard there was an Onion Knight with similar name and role as Siegmeyer in 3 I lost all hope for it to be any good.
    Dark Souls II's plot does not take anything away from DS1. The world of Dark Souls is cyclical, it was even this way in the original DS1.

    Also, how does having an armor set make you lose hope in a game? I'm really confused by this.

    I just finished getting the platinum trophy for Dark Souls II. I have to say, it's a really really good game. I didn't enjoy it as much as the original (like pretty much everyone else), but it's still a fantastic game and a worthy sequel.

  12. #1407
    disc jockey to your heart krissy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    in the rain
    Posts
    5,616
    Articles
    1
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    maybe it's experience, but i found DSII easier. this is my analogy

    ds1 : ds2 :: berserk : lord of the rings

    it seemed much brighter to me, more happy if that's a thing

    but yeah they're still 9.5 and 9

    it is hard to appreciate 2 maybe, after playing 1 and hoping for something better, but it's hard to do that in any media

    edit:
    this shirt is on sale
    https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/33...b30dde9bd4ffa0
    Last edited by krissy; 06-23-2017 at 04:05 PM.

  13. #1408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scruffington View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete for President View Post
    Im hoping Miyazaki will stick true to his former self and not make a sequel to Bloodborne.

    Although I can only speak for Dark Souls 2 I really think it did not even come close to the greatness that was Dark Souls 1. A lot of things 2 does with the plot takes away from the meaning of 1 and I refuse to acknowledge it being canon. Why didnt they set Dark Souls 2 in a different part of the world during the Age of Dark and not reference 1 at all? Instead we get cringe worthy shields with Solaire on it and every big plot character from 1 they put so much effort in to present them as epic beings of the history of Lordran is brought down by the "oh its just a cycle" thing. I hate it.

    These games and their way of storytelling work best on a clean slate where every aspect of it is new, because exploration is such a huge part of it. Encountering familiair things during while "exploring" takes away from the experience.

    I cringed when I found Havels Armor in Dark Souls 2 and when I heard there was an Onion Knight with similar name and role as Siegmeyer in 3 I lost all hope for it to be any good.
    Dark Souls II's plot does not take anything away from DS1. The world of Dark Souls is cyclical, it was even this way in the original DS1.

    Also, how does having an armor set make you lose hope in a game? I'm really confused by this.

    I just finished getting the platinum trophy for Dark Souls II. I have to say, it's a really really good game. I didn't enjoy it as much as the original (like pretty much everyone else), but it's still a fantastic game and a worthy sequel.
    IMO it does though. In Dark Souls 1 all the major plot characters are introduced in the intro. Nito, Seath, Gwyn, the Witches, Furtive Pygmy. All of them - save Pygmy kinda - are written about, talked about, presented as epic ancient beings whose actions have shaped Lordran. They slayed dragons thus the Age of Fire began (their very own Age), but soon the flames will fade. Witch tried to copy the flame and brought chaos upon the world. Gwyn sacrificed himself to the flame to reignite it (and kinda worked) but now the flame fades again. Introducing Undead who sets out and meets all these characters who have done all these crazy things and eventually after slaying Gwyn we have a choice.

    Either prolong the Age of Fire like Gwyn did, or speed up the process and usher in the Age of Dark which will eventually show up anyway as legend has it. While the Fire option is indeed somewhat of a cycle the Dark ending is not. We are left with a choice, but we know that the Age of Dark will come eventually no matter the choice. We are led to believe (and righteously so) that the Age of Fire is special. It's a one time thing even though it can be prolonged. Beings have fought hard so shape the world as it was and they were unique characters with unique motives in their one of a kind age. But then Dark Souls 2 steps in and says: "well prolonging the Age of Fire is kinda what always happens and none of these dudes mattered cause it happened tons of times and Age of Dark? Never heard of it.". All that effective world and character building of 1 is just instantly wiped out. If something happens lots it's not special. If many people do the same thing it's not special. Dark Souls 1 emphasised the uniqueness of it all, gave identity to characters and Lordran, giving the player a meaningful existence in an otherwise doomed world. Dark Souls 2 takes that all down by its repetition.

    The Havels armour was an example of the many rehashed lore and characters that Dark Souls 2 leeches on and takes away from their identity and meaning.

  14. #1409
    Memento Mori Site Contributor Wolf Kanno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nowhere and Everywhere
    Posts
    16,444
    Articles
    54
    Blog Entries
    16
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Actually some fans speculate that the Souls world goes back and forth between an Age of Fire and Dark. You can be the Dark Lord, but it doesn't mean the total end of the fire, instead the character reigns as the Dark Lord until another Hollow shows up and kills them and chooses to either take their place or reignite the First Flame. In truth, because Lord Gwyn bound the souls of humans to the bonfire and the First Flame, he has effectively created the ultimate contingency plan to make sure that even if his efforts failed with the first "Chosen Undead" there was always a chance a new "Chosen" would rise up and follow suit. Even Demon's Souls alludes to the fact that the conflict of the story itself is cyclical nature as not only has all the crap with the Old One happened before, but even putting the damn thing to sleep just means it will be just another few centuries before another asshole comes along and wakes it up to gain power. So far, every game Miyazaki has done has had a theme of cycles and the sheer despair it causes.

    Dark Souls concept borrows heavily from Norse Mythology with the extinguish of the first flame being sort of like a less violent Ragnarok. Course in actual Norse Mythology, while Ragnarok meant the end of Odin and the Age of the Gods, it didn't mean the gods wouldn't still be around, as figures like Heimdall were prophesied to survive the great battle and become the new ruler of the gods in the next age. Similar in tone, while your Chosen Undead certainly takes down the major big wigs of the last age, there are still several gods in the mythos who seem to have simply disappeared. I mean what the hell actually happened to the real Gywnevere? She simply left with all the gods in the first game to someplace unknown and then DSIII has her partially pop up as the queen mother to the game's major location where she once again, does some stuff and skips town before all the crazy trout happens.

    My point is that while I can get behind the original notion of DS being a one and done story, I feel the vagueness of the plot and the creativity of the writers and fans has more or less come up with good solutions to how the story can continue past the first game.

  15. #1410

    Default

    So is there an equivalent of Ornstein & Smough in Dark Souls III? Is there any boss that really stands out as the Big Bad of DS3 for its difficulty?

    I was told the Nameless King is pretty challenging, but I want to hear what everyone else thinks is the toughest DS3 boss. :P

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •